Central venous catheters (CVC) remain a frequently used form of vascular access in children receiving chronic hemodialysis (HD). Whereas standard dual‐lumen catheters (DL) are used in many centers, the Tesio catheter has proven to be superior to the DL catheter in terms of catheter survival and infection rates in at least one pediatric study (Sheth RD et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001). Recently, the Ash Split catheter became available which, while similar to the Tesio internally, being comprised of 2 separate catheters, may be preferable because of the requirement for only one skin puncture for placement vs. two for the Tesio. However, no pediatric data pertaining to the Ash Split catheter have been published to date. Therefore, we reviewed and compared our experience with a small number of Ash Split (# 16) and Tesio (# 8) catheters used for semipermanent vascular access in our chronic HD population with reference to survival, infectious complications, patency, and dialysis adequacy. The results of this experience are as follows: Tesio Ash Split Survival >3 months 6/8 12/15 Sepsis (epi/catheter mo) 1/30 1/25 Exit‐site infection (epi/catheter mo) 1/8.6 1/19 sp Kt/V urea 1.67 1.88 % sp Kt/V urea >1.2 100 90 Reasons for the removal of Tesio catheters were transplant (4), sepsis (1), deterioration of tubing (1), and accidental (1). Ash Split catheter removal resulted from sepsis (2), fistula placement (4), thrombosis (1), and accidental (2). This preliminary experience reveals similar outcome data for the Tesio and Ash Split catheters when used in pediatric HD patients. Definitive statements regarding the superiority of either catheter awaits additional data collection and analysis.